Today in Supreme Court History: February 13, 2016

2/13/16: Justice Antonin Scalia died.

Justice Antonin Scalia

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (decided February 13, 1806): Out of this evil seed grew upwards of two hundred years of ridiculously wasteful procedural litigation. Marshall holds that “between a citizen of a state and a citizen of another state”, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, means that in a diversity action every plaintiff must be from a different state from every defendant. The Constitution itself says only “between citizens of different states”, art. III, §2, and there’s nothing to stop Congress from undoing this decision by statute. The Court itself has noted that all Article III really requires is “minimal” diversity (just one plaintiff has to be from a different state from just one defendant); see 545 U.S. 546. A bill to totally abolish diversity jurisdiction passed the House of Representatives resoundingly in 1978 but failed in the Senate, defeated by the lawyers’ lobby. (Marshall later regretted this holding, see discussion at 43 U.S. 497, 555.)

Phillips v. Mound City Land & Water Ass’n, 124 U.S. 605 (decided February 13, 1888): no federal question presented by state court’s partitioning of land in Los Angeles according to its construction of laws of Mexico as they existed pre-conquest (conquest by the United States, that is)

United States v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U.S. 621 (decided February 13, 1888): Chinese national in custody after not being allowed to land in San Francisco due to Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was permitted to bring habeas petition (habeas statute was then changed in 1891 to disallow immigrant petitions, see Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 2020)

Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (decided February 13, 1967): defendant convicted of rape/murder of eight-year-old girl based on his “bloody underpants” presented at trial but prosecutor knew it was just red paint; habeas granted and conviction vacated

Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (decided February 13, 1939): This is one of many cases on whether motion picture distribution agreements violate antitrust laws. I mention it here because of the wonderful sentence: “The production of weak evidence when strong is available can lead only to the conclusion that the strong would have been adverse.” Id. at 226. In my practice I never have to look at SCOTUS cases, but I quote this every chance I get.

[SRG2]

What is astonishing in Miller is that any appeals court could find for the state. They must have been real scum in those days. I assume the original prosecutor faced no sanction for subornation of perjury.

I can't find a timeline but I wonder whether under AEDPA Miller would have been "timed out".

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Circuit Court opinion (342 F.2d 646) shows a lot of issues involved, and that court’s dismissal was mostly based defendant’s failure to present evidence until after conviction. Also we learn that the forensic expert found that some of the red stains were blood (though possibly not a matching blood type) though admittedly other stains were paint; and defendant argued that the shorts were not his because they would have been “too tight in the crotch”.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

(IANAL) The only google link I could find says the state witness claimed to have tested the "blood" and concluded it was the same blood type as the victim. That's two perjuries. The victim's blood type was "known" by the victim's mother's testimony instead of any kind of actual test.

The whole thing reeks, and for a death penalty case!

[defaultdotxbe]

On top of that there didn't seem to be anything connecting the shorts to the defendant, or even to the crime (discarding the fabricated evidence of course) as they were found in a warehouse a mile away from the crime scene.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, and FWIW, he claimed they were too small, which reminded me of OJ.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He didn’t say they were too small, he said they were “too tight in the crotch”. Of course he never claimed to have worn them, so he must have been able to tell just by looking at them.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Same difference, too tight or too small, and it still reminded me of OJ, and I wondered how he could know they'd be too small without trying them on. Made me smile thinking of a repeat performance, with him trying them on in court, dried and shrunk.

[Dan Schiavetta]

IIRC he tried them on in court while already wearing latex gloves. Nobody's gloves fit, even if they are on the large size, if you already have latex gloves on.

[Dan Schiavetta]

meant to say "large side"

[Magister]

Perhaps a boxers versus briefs thing.

(Boxers v. Briefs has never been granted cert by SCOTUS, despite various circuit splits and holes in some cases and notable degrees of ripeness.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha!

The “too tight in the crotch” argument reminds me of a case my law school girlfriend referred me to — I can’t find it now, but the defendant in a rape case argued that he couldn’t have physically done it because his penis was abnormally large. IIRC there was testimony from his wife or girlfriend as to sex with him being impossible. It was clear from the testimony that the guy was innocent but I assume the court didn’t want to establish a precedent for a “huge penis” defense.

[Commenter_XY]

That was inspired, lol.

[bernard11]

Further,

Prior to his trial in an Illinois court, his counsel filed a motion for an order permitting a scientific inspection of the physical evidence the prosecution intended to introduce. [Footnote 1] The motion was resisted by the prosecution and denied by the court.

There's even more there.

Both the judge and the prosecutor should have been imprisoned.

[Frank Drackman]

Boring, still can’t believe “Nino” (can think of a lot of words to describe Judge Scalia, “Nino” isn’t one of them) Blocking Garland was the only good thing the Turtle’s ever done, didn’t think he had the balls. Has anyone here ever seen a Selenelion? Of course first you’d have to know what a Selenelion is. Hint, it's sort of the opposite of what's going to happen April 8th

Frank